In my continuing search to discover the cause of my P225's weird accuracy issues I have been offered the use of a P239 barrel, which the owner says is the same as the P225-A1 barrel according to a search. Is that the case, and if so, is the A1/239 barrel the same as the original P225 barrel? Thanks!
--------------------------- My hovercraft is full of eels.
Originally posted by RX-79G: Per the other thread, I'm a bit shocked that the original P228 barrel is not identical to the original P225 barrel.
But if they aren't they aren't.
Why? The P228 is like a cut down P226 while the P225 is like a cut down P220. I don't believe the 9mm P220 and P226 barrels are interchangeable. There is more to interchangeability between barrels than length. Compatibility of the barrel lugs with the locking insert should probably be taken into account.
Disclaimer: I'm not a gunsmith or SIG armorer.
Posts: 2807 | Location: Texas | Registered: July 13, 2009
Originally posted by wgsigs: Why? The P228 is like a cut down P226 while the P225 is like a cut down P220. I don't believe the 9mm P220 and P226 barrels are interchangeable. There is more to interchangeability between barrels than length. Compatibility of the barrel lugs with the locking insert should probably be taken into account.
Disclaimer: I'm not a gunsmith or SIG armorer.
I guess I would have said that a P226 is P220 with a hicap frame and a P228 is a P225 with a widebody frame. And I would bet that was very true at some point in their development. Locking blocks are an issue, but as SIG locking blocks are inserted in the frame, there's really no reason that making a hicap P228 out of the P225 would have required changing anything about the locking block, slide or barrel, just like a widebody 1911 uses the same barrel and slide as a standard one.
But that apparently isn't what happened, and that's the important thing. It is just odd, but maybe Sig simply took the opportunity to improve the locking or barrel system in the P228 after observing the P225 in use for many years. The P225 has two different barrels itself since the P6 won't feed HP.
Well it would make sense to me that a shorter barrel would have a different locking profile, as it has to move farther relative to the muzzle to unlock than a longer barrel does. Unless my high school geometry fails me, which it might.
But a 3.9" barrel from a P228, in my mind I don't see why they'd have to make it different from the 3.9" barrel in the P225 unless there are other design elements that come into play. Maybe I'll try swapping them when I get a sec... and pray it doesn't FUBAR either LOL
--------------------------- My hovercraft is full of eels.
Originally posted by 1KPerDay: Well it would make sense to me that a shorter barrel would have a different locking profile, as it has to move farther relative to the muzzle to unlock than a longer barrel does. Unless my high school geometry fails me, which it might.
But a 3.9" barrel from a P228, in my mind I don't see why they'd have to make it different from the 3.9" barrel in the P225 unless there are other design elements that come into play. Maybe I'll try swapping them when I get a sec... and pray it doesn't FUBAR either LOL
You might start by simply putting them next to each other on a flat surface and looking at them carefully.
I guess I would have said that a P226 is P220 with a hicap frame and a P228 is a P225 with a widebody frame. And I would bet that was very true at some point in their development.
Not entirely true as I understand the history of the P-series pistols. The P220 was introduced in 1975 and the P225 that was based on the P220 followed shortly after around 1976.
I believe you are correct that the P226 frame might have started out as a P220 frame and could be considered a double stack P220, but it did not appear until 1983. The P220 slide had gone through multiple iterations by then. The P228 was based off of the P226, but it was introduced in 1988, 12 years after the P225.
However, the common heritage of the frames does not mean the slides and barrels also share similar.
Apologies for the sidetrack.
Posts: 2807 | Location: Texas | Registered: July 13, 2009
Not entirely true as I understand the history of the P-series pistols. The P220 was introduced in 1975 and the P225 that was based on the P220 followed shortly after around 1976.
I believe you are correct that the P226 frame might have started out as a P220 frame and could be considered a double stack P220, but it did not appear until 1983. The P220 slide had gone through multiple iterations by then. The P228 was based off of the P226, but it was introduced in 1988, 12 years after the P225.
However, the common heritage of the frames does not mean the slides and barrels also share similar.
Apologies for the sidetrack.
You have the order correct, I just don't think the fact of their development order means that SIG would need to reinvent the 3.9" slide just because they are basing the P228 frame on the P226. This is a family of pistols and the designers aren't going to throw away their experience or tooling used on the P225 just because the P228 also bears a resemblence to the P226. It's basically a chopped 226 frame with a 225 slide. There's no reason they would need to make the 228 slide differently just because the mag holds more rounds.
That's like saying that the G23 has nothing to do with the G19 because the G22 came from the G17 and is the .40 right before the G23. Clearly you take what you need from where you need it.
As far as the thread topic goes, there seems to be plenty of reason to believe that the P228 barrel is different, or aftermarket barrels for both would be the same. But there is no reason SIG couldn't have chosen to make them identical - they do the exact same job.
Just discussing a topic we both find interesting. I think the development process is fascinating. Plus the P228 and P225 are the only modern SIGs I've spent any time with.
